We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 29 July 14
GENCO: DRY BULK SHIPPING VALUATIONS NO LONGER ANCHORED TO DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW METHOD - WEIL
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Discounted cash flow analysis is a mainstay among the valuation methodologies used by restructuring professionals and bankruptcy courts to determine the enterprise value of a distressed business. Despite its prevalence, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently concluded the DCF method was inappropriate for the valuation of “dry bulk” shipping companies. In re Genco Shipping & Trading Limited. Although the bankruptcy court merely applied existing law to the facts of the case, the decision in Genco could serve as precedent for the valuation of companies in other segments of the shipping industry, or other industries, that experience significant volatility in rates.
Genco and the Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a leading provider of maritime transportation services for “dry bulk” cargoes, such as iron ore, coal, grain, and steel products. Through its subsidiaries, Genco owns and operates a fleet of 53 vessels, which it contracts out to third-parties under fixed-rate or spot-market time charters.
In April 2014, Genco and certain of its affiliates commenced cases under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to implement a prepackaged plan of reorganization that would consensually restructure approximately $1.48 billion in secured and unsecured debt. The Genco plan provided the following key features:
- Approximately $1.2 billion of secured debt would be converted into equity in the reorganized company.
- New capital would be invested through a $100 million, fully backstopped rights offering.
- The maturities for two secured prepetition facilities would be extended.
- Allowed general unsecured claims would be reinstated and paid in the ordinary course of business.
- Existing equity holders would receive warrants for up to 6% of the equity in the reorganized company.
The plan garnered unanimous approval from Genco’s secured lenders and holders of its unsecured convertible notes.
The Genco plan was premised on an enterprise valuation between $1.36 billion and $1.44 billion. The debtors derived this range of values from a “Net Asset Valuation” analysis, a methodology commonly applied to shipping companies in non-bankruptcy contexts. An upcoming post will examine the bankruptcy court’s analysis of the NAV methodology in the bankruptcy context.
Equity Committee Contested Genco Plan Valuation
Less than three weeks into the bankruptcy, the U.S. Trustee appointed an equity committee, which was comprised of (i) Aurelius Capital Partners LP, (ii) Mohawk Capital LLC, and (iii) OZ Domestic Partners, LP (a/k/a Och Ziff).
The equity committee objected to confirmation of the Genco plan. It argued, among other things, that the debtors’ enterprise value was actually between $1.54 billion and $1.91 billion. The equity committee argued that, because the debtors were solvent under its valuation, existing equity holders were entitled to greater recoveries than those provided under the Genco plan. The equity committee derived its range of values from a weighted average of its DCF, comparable company, precedent transaction, and NAV analyses, with each weighted at 37.5%, 37.5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively
Bankruptcy Court Rejected DCF Methodology for Dry Bulk Shippers
To determine whether Genco’s enterprise value exceeded $1.48 billion, the amount at which existing equity holders would be entitled to any recovery, the bankruptcy court examined the testimony presented with respect to each of the four valuation methodologies. The bankruptcy court concluded that there were “many good reasons that the DCF method should not be applied here” and considered only the remaining three methodologies, ultimately determining that the debtors’ value did not exceed $1.48 billion.
The bankruptcy court began its analysis of the DCF methodology by explaining it briefly, as follows:
A discounted cash flow analysis entails estimating the periodic cash flow that a company will generate over a discrete time period, determining the ‘terminal value’ of the company at the end of the period, and discounting each of the cash flows and terminal value to determine the total value as of the relevant date.
Thus, even though a DCF analysis is a “traditional methodology,” it is of limited use when based on projections of future cash flows that are unreliable or difficult to ascertain. The bankruptcy court found that accurate cash flow projections did not exist for Genco, and it observed that the parties agreed on this point. In fact, the equity committee’s financial adviser testified that “shipping rates are volatile and the industry can be characterized as cyclical ….” In addition, the committee’s expert witness conceded that “[i]t is difficult to accurately forecast freight rates in drybulk shipping …. [and that] the drybulk market is dynamic and volatile.”
Interestingly, the bankruptcy court concluded not just that accurate projections were unobtainable in the case of Genco, specifically, but also for dry bulk shippers, generally. The bankruptcy court observed that the DCF method is inappropriate for the dry bulk shipping market because it is volatile and highly fragmented, has low barriers to entry, and little differentiation exists among competitors, causing charter rates to fluctuate with supply and demand and making revenues unpredictable. The bankruptcy court further noted that its market-wide concerns were exacerbated in the case of Genco because its longer-term charters are set to expire by October 2014, leaving the company entirely exposed to market volatility through spot-rate charters.
Equity Committee’s DCF Analysis Unpersuasive for Additional Reasons
Although the bankruptcy court found that “the volatility of the [dry bulk] industry is a sufficient basis by itself to reject a DCF analysis,” it proceeded to identify a number of particular problems with the equity committee’s DCF analysis that made it unpersuasive.
First, the bankruptcy court noted that the equity committee’s heavy reliance on its DCF analysis was internally inconsistent because the assumptions about future industry performance underlying the analysis were based on reports from equity analysts, most of whom did not utilize the DCF method in reaching their conclusions. Second, in written materials presented to Och Ziff prior to the bankruptcy filing, the financial adviser to the equity committee noted that the DCF method was not commonly used to value companies in the shipping industry.
The bankruptcy court also noted that, before being retained by the equity committee, the financial adviser to the equity committee prepared pitch materials for debtors in which it estimated a shortfall in Genco’s collateral value. The bankruptcy court made clear that it did not rely on this fact in reaching its decision, but mentioned it and other, similar statements that undermined the credibility of the testimony presented by the financial adviser to the equity committee. Third, the equity committee’s argument that DCF analyses were used in fairness opinions issued in connection with certain maritime M&A transactions was not compelling because other evidence suggested that those transactions focused more on the NAV methodology for purposes of valuation, and there was conflicting testimony on the usefulness of fairness opinions in the context of a contested hearing on valuation.
Finally, the bankruptcy court found that the testimony presented by the equity committee’s expert witness regarding shipping rate forecasts was “unpersuasive and less credible than that” presented by the debtors’ expert.
Lessons Learned
The prospective nature of the DCF method often allows parties to advocate for higher valuations on subjective and/or intangible grounds. The Genco decision is significant because it establishes a clear precedent rejecting the DCF method when determining the enterprise value of dry bulk shipping companies in bankruptcy. This precedent may reduce the leverage of parties, such as equity holders, that would benefit from a higher valuation of a dry bulk shipper.
The decision, however, will likely have farther-reaching consequences. Dry bulk is just one segment of the larger shipping industry, and many other segments share the characteristics that the bankruptcy court cited to support its conclusion that accurate projections were unobtainable. Similarly, shipping is not the only industry with notable volatility; other industries may soon be the next port of call for the Genco decision.
Source: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Morgan / Hellenic Shipping
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Sunday, 02 November 14
CAPE INDEX WAS UP 46.65% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: The BDI and Cape index continued the strong upward trend this week. The BDI was up 19.80 pct and Cape index was up by 46.65 per ...
Friday, 31 October 14
BUKIT ASAM'S NET PROFIT ROSE 27.42% FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY - SEPTEMBER 2014
COALspot.com: Publicly listed coal miner Bukit Asam reported solid profits in the first nine months of 2014 year.
Coal miner Bukit Asam manage ...
Friday, 31 October 14
U.S PRODUCED AROUND 19.3 MMST OF COAL IN A WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's one of largest coal producers, produced approximately 19.3 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Thursday, 30 October 14
COAL & GRAINS SUPPORT PANAMAX AND IRON ORE SUPPORTS CAPES
Handy
The Atlantic market has been flat this week. Rates are up about US$ 200 from last week on the TA´s, but the volumes are about the sam ...
Thursday, 30 October 14
DOES A LOU ARBITRATION AGREEMENT FOR THE UNDERLYING CARGO CLAIM COMPLETELY REPLACE THE BILL OF LADING ARBITRATION CLAUSE? - INCE &CO
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
In the context of cargo claims brought under four bills of lading, the Commercial Court has recently considered whether a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3401 to 3405 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- PTC India Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Australian Coal Association
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- MS Steel International - UAE
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Minerals Council of Australia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- The University of Queensland
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
|
| |
| |
|
